Re: [linux-audio-dev] discussion about development overlap

[Kai Vehmanen]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Benno Senoner wrote:

>> this has been discussed already, but how much trouble should I expect
>> (portability wise), if I replace the current fifo with an non-locking fifo
>> using asm/atomic.h? In other words, is it worth the trouble to keep both,
> It's quite easy IMHO:
> just use a ringbuffer.h-like structure ,
> define your message structure ( typedef struct { bla bla bla } mymsg_t; )

Ok, I meant to ask specifically about the possible portability issues,
but oh well, thanks for the thorough explanation. :) Btw; the ringbuffer.h
is very nice piece of code. It doesn't have any extra dependencies,
is documented, generic (use of templates), so all in all, a very good
module from sw engineering pov. 

> If you ask me, I'd keep only the lock-free fifo, even if you do not exploit its
> full advantages (that it does not block and that it is very fast).

But portability is a major concern here. If you stop supporting
traditional locking, you need to do this in a portable way... or provide 
an alternative. But it seems that Paul is already working on this... 

-- 
 . http://www.eca.cx ... [ audio software for linux ] /\ . 
 . http://www.eca.cx/aivastus ... [ aivastus net radio ] /\ . 
 . http://www.eca.cx/sculpscape [ my armchair-tunes mp3/ra/wav ]